|
Summaries
of Recent New Mexico Appellate Opinions - Civil Cases
|
|
|
Full Opinions - Hard
Copy
|
Civil Cases: July 2008 (most
recent cases listed first)
State ex rel. Regents of ENMU v. Baca, SC 30,950 (per curiam) July 30, 2008
Where the Procurement Code contains provisions for hearing protests and then appeals from decisions on protests, a person aggrieved by the hearing cannot file an independent action in the district court of another district seeking declaratory judgment and thereby bypass the administrative process and this is true even though constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to district courts is extremely broad.
Mintz v. Zoernig, CA 27,794 (Vigil) Jul 25, 2008
Although there is an agreement between a known sperm donor and the mother of the child (outside the provisions of the uniform parentage act because no physician was involved) that there will be no child support, when the donor actually assumes a parental role, he should be liable for child support; child support may not be modified except upon a showing of changed circumstances.
Marrujo v. Sanderson, CA 27,689 (Castillo) Jul 15, 2008
A reservation of timber rights in a deed creates a right to harvest timber for only a reasonable time, and not in perpetuity, unless the deed clearly indicates that the right is in perpetuity, and granting the right to heirs and assigns is not such clear language.
Malissa C. v. Matthew Wayne H., CA 26,943 (Fry) Jul 9, 2008
When there are competing child custody proceedings in different states, the important question facing courts of this state is whether the proceedings in the other state are conducted in conformity with the UCCJEA and when the evidence before the NM court is that NM is the child’s home state, then the other state’s proceeding is not being conducted in conformity with the act and the NM court can assume jurisdiction; parent’s argument that NM court erred in denying visitation until the parent dismissed the proceedings in the other state was not preserved and not meritorious anyway.
Ovecka v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rwy. Co., CA 26,449 (Kennedy) Jul 9, 2008
Defendant was not liable either vicariously or directly when its employee left work and went home and got drunk and into an accident on his way back to work, and this was true even though the employee was paid mileage between work sites because for vicarious liability, the employee has to be on the employer’s business and for direct liability, there has to be more of a connection between the employer’s requirements of driving (such as there were in the recent Lessard case or the case it relied on) and the employee’s employment and also more of a connection between the accident and the work.
Garcia v. Gutierrez, CA 26,484 (Robinson) Jul 8, 2008
Tribal lands are generally considered to be part of a state’s territory and therefore, when people live for some months on tribal lands and some months on non-tribal lands for the six-month period prior to a divorce, the state court has jurisdiction to grant the divorce; but if that jurisdiction would infringe on tribal sovereignty under federal law, state courts might not have jurisdiction; but the NM Supreme Court has already decided that state courts have jurisdiction in this situation; the situation is different, however, for child custody issues; as to those, the UCCJEA provides that tribes are treated as states in determining home state; so when children lived within outer boundaries of pueblo during all six months prior to filing of action, children’s home state was pueblo, even if they lived on fee land within pueblo because all such land is Indian country; PKPA does not direct the district court, rather than the tribal court, to take jurisdiction in this situation.
Waters-Haskins v. NM Human Svcs. Dep’t, CA 26,891 (Alarid) Jul 8, 2008
Where food stamp recipient correctly reported all her income to HSD, but HSD made an coding error that resulted in the recipient erroneously getting food stamps, and where recipient argued that HSD should be equitably estopped from collecting back the erroneously received benefits, Court avoids the issue of equitable estoppel and instead rules that federal regulations provide that HSD can exercise discretion in compromising such collection claims and since HSD did not exercise discretion, that was an abuse of discretion, which results in reversal of district court affirmance of HSD’s actions in collecting the erroneously paid benefits (Sutin, dissenting on the ground the majority’s reliance on federal regulation is unsupported by case law and not argued by the recipient).
|
